Our lives, this universe is just a simulation running on a computer....

[teclis1023]

I'm definitely interested in reading more, but the article doesn't really give any real evidence or compelling reasons to believe this. It's just a bunch of quotations about what 'could be'.

Seems like just another God theory.

Here's my view...live this life like it's the only one we've got. Because at the present state of confirmed knowledge, it is.

 

[Nathelion]

Originally posted by: Chaotic42
Wouldn't a computer that could simulate our universe have to be the same size as our universe, assuming that the laws of physics are the same?


I started to answer this with a knee-jerk 'no,' because obviously the size of a piece of information has no relation to the thing it informs about. But then I started thinking about storage. If the universe is a simulation then every atom must be stored, since we can detect atoms and learn things about individual atoms. In fact every particle must be represented, because we can detect and learn about individual particles as well. So if the size of storage were reduced to some number of bits per individual atom, you would probably still need more than all the atoms in the universe to store the state of all the atoms in the universe.

Another alternative is that elemental particles are represented as class types, and not as individual instances. In which case the class data is what we see whenever we detect a particle. But if you can find two atoms of the same "class" that are behaving differently at the same point in time, that idea goes out the window.

This would be a valid point, if we were interested in simulating the entire universe. In this particular case, we are only interested in simulating the brains of 6000000000 or so humans and a basic representation of their immediate environment. There is more than enough universe floating around for that.

But back to the point you're making, you'd need an entire universe to simulate the universe. Or, more accurately, the universe is "simulating" itself. However if we consider data compression schemes as a valid method, then you wouldn't need anything at all. You'd just make the compression algorithm "If there is nothing, that means that there is a universe just like the one those silly humans on earth is living in". Of course it'd require an entire universe to actually describe this compression "algorithm", but hey, who cares?
On a more serious note, the potential for data compression is a function of the entropy of the data set. Since our universe is not at maximum entropy (the infamous "heat-death" of thermodynamics), one could use a universe slightly smaller than ours to describe ours (at the cost of processing power). Not sure what the use of that knowledge could be, but hey, philosophy isn't about being useful.

 

[firewolfsm]

Originally posted by: Markbnj

Originally posted by: firewolfsm
Philosophy is

RETARDED

Yes, it's dumb to probe the nature of reality and the boundaries of existance when we have YouTube.

I've seen people use philosophy to prove that I am, in fact, the person sitting next to me. And the logic all worked out too. It doesn't mean the conclusion is any more useful or valid.

 

[Markbnj]

You'd just make the compression algorithm "If there is nothing, that means that there is a universe just like the one those silly humans on earth is living in".

Right, and since the universe is so vast those silly humans can only sample some tiny portion of it at any given time, so you just have to instantiate the stuff needed in the piece they are looking at. If you can do that in realtime then the storage requirements might drop significantly.

 

[simondedalus]

dont make such a brawl ...........just wait for "Godot" ; he will resolve this problem....

nice eye-candy idea but too realistic to believe

 

[Markbnj]

Originally posted by: firewolfsm

Originally posted by: Markbnj

Originally posted by: firewolfsm
Philosophy is

RETARDED

Yes, it's dumb to probe the nature of reality and the boundaries of existance when we have YouTube.

I've seen people use philosophy to prove that I am, in fact, the person sitting next to me. And the logic all worked out too. It doesn't mean the conclusion is any more useful or valid.

It also doesn't mean that it's neither useful, nor valid.

 

[NanoStuff]

Originally posted by: firewolfsm
I've seen people use philosophy to prove that I am, in fact, the person sitting next to me. And the logic all worked out too. It doesn't mean the conclusion is any more useful or valid.

It's useful like you wouldn't imagine if you're willing to make sense of it. No piece of information is useful if you're incapable of comprehending it, the rule isn't exclusive to philosophy.

The idea redefines the otherwise intuitive belief of individuality, or continuity to one's own consciousness and demonstrates that the person next to you could potentially be you, or that there isn't necessarily any meaningful distinction between what is you and what is someone else. It doesn't suggest that the person next to you is you and you yourself are not you. That's a logical contradiction and you probably misunderstood it if you thought this was the intent. It likely just tried to get you to reason that there is nothing particularly special about your perceived 1st person experiences as yourself.

 

[Matt1970]

Originally posted by: Analog

Dr. Bostrom assumes that technological advances could produce a computer with more processing power than all the brains in the world, and that advanced humans, or ?posthumans,? could run ?ancestor simulations? of their evolutionary history by creating virtual worlds inhabited by virtual people with fully developed virtual nervous systems.

Some computer experts have projected, based on trends in processing power, that we will have such a computer by the middle of this century, but it doesn?t matter for Dr. Bostrom?s argument whether it takes 50 years or 5 million years. If civilization survived long enough to reach that stage, and if the posthumans were to run lots of simulations for research purposes or entertainment, then the number of virtual ancestors they created would be vastly greater than the number of real ancestors.

We are gonna have a computer in 50 years that is more powerful than all the brains in the world ? I doubt it.

 

[Nathelion]

"...it doesn?t matter for Dr. Bostrom?s argument whether it takes 50 years or 5 million years".

Did you bother to read your own quote?

 

[NanoStuff]

Originally posted by: Matt1970
We are gonna have a computer in 50 years that is more powerful than all the brains in the world ?

Yep, I'd say it's pretty much guaranteed, we just have to maintain the same pace we have in the last 50 years. The pace is likely to accelerate so you're looking at potentially 30-40 years.

 

[Nurn]

Ah, I am pleased that my simulation has sparked so much interest among my characters. The time has now come to proceed with the first quest. To all who have found their way to this forum, you must now make your way to the rendezvous point at the appointed time:

Lower observation deck, Eiffel Tower, Paris, France at precisely 12 noon GMT, October 31, 2007. Wear a white hat and sunglasses to assist in identifying your whole party. Further instructions will be available at that time and location.

 

[Markbnj]

What if Nurn were one of us?
Just some code like one of us?
Just some bits out on the bus?
Trying to discharge to ground?
Like some lightning in a cloud?

 

[Nathelion]

Originally posted by: Matt1970
We are gonna have a computer in 50 years that is more powerful than all the brains in the world ?

Yep, I'd say it's pretty much guaranteed, we just have to maintain the same pace we have in the last 50 years. The pace is likely to accelerate so you're looking at potentially 30-40 years.

Depends on what you mean by a computer being "powerful". Comparing the processing power of a neural net and an algorithmic processor is difficult at best. For example, the human brain operates at around 100 neuron propagation cycles per second. A processor weighs in at several gigahertz, but can still only carry out a fraction of the tasks the brain can. The CPU is good at well defined, precise calculations such as the operations of formal logic or arithmetic. In this, it can beat the human many times over. A CPU can, however, never be "smart", by definition. A CPU can carry out tasks that someone else (likely a human brain) has already figured out how to do, such as an algorithm for finding prime numbers, calculating the integral of a complicated function, or how to render a number of polygons accurately on a 2D display. A neural network such as our brain, on the other hand, can't do any of those things very well or quickly, but is on the other hand capable of coming up with said algorithms in the first place. The two are intrinsically different, and they excel at different tasks.
Now, could you program a CPU to act and respond exactly as a given neural network would? Certainly, but it would be tremendously difficult and require ridiculous amounts of precessing power (in fact, the easiest way to do it would probably be to "simulate" the neural network in question down to the sub-neuron level, effectively creating an equivalent neural network). But it is possible. It just isn't very efficient or even desirable.
On the other hand, could you make a neural network do what a CPU does? Certainly. In fact, every operation carried out by a modern CPU had first been carried out by a human designer, to check that it accomplishes something desirable. We wouldn't be able to make a cpu unless we knew what it did, and how. But can we do it particularly well, or quickly? Certainly not. A C2D can calculate primes a LOT faster than i ever could. Making a neural network that can accomplish the same things as a CPU isn't efficient or desirable either.
The question of "which is faster, the new XXXz0rz Super Deluxe Ultra Plus Extra Gigacore 100 000 GHz processor, or all the human brains in the world combined?" is really a meaningless question. It depends entirely on what you want to accomplish.